DEC
2019
   LOG CABIN CHRONICLES    UPDATED
DAILY

Frank Bernheisel: The View From Here
Frank Bernheisel
spacer
spacer
Frank Bernheisel
Posted 10.4.21
Just Outside Washington

FRANK BERNHEISEL

THE GREAT OVERTURNING YET TO COME

Robert Reich is one of my favorite commentators and I check his website for the latest. He is also an American economist, professor, author, and lawyer. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, as well as serving as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 under President Bill Clinton. He also was a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board. If you said he is a liberal, I think you are right.

Reich is the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University. He has written several books and been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect, Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

The article below, taken from Reich's website, talks about the politicization of the Supreme Court and adds some insight based on personal experience. He mentions stare decisis, which tends to slow the Court changing its mind and requiring a good reason if it does. However, that did not stop Antonin Scalia from changing the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment because he liked guns and hunting.

Just one year after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Republican nominees on the Supreme Court are on the way to overturning Roe v. Wade. But they're going out of their way to speak out publicly against the partisanship they're actively engaged in.

Last week, Clarence Thomas told a crowd of more than 800 students and faculty at Notre Dame that the Court shouldn't be viewed in partisan terms, and that justices don't base their rulings on "personal preferences." But if not personal preferences, where exactly do they discover the law? Thomas never said. When asked whether the attorneys presenting oral arguments ever compel him to change his mind, Thomas said, "almost never."

The previous week, the court's newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, told a crowd in Kentucky that Supreme Court justices are not a "bunch of partisan hacks." Methinks they doth protest too much.

If there's any doubt about the partisan hackery of the Supreme Court's six Republican appointees, it will be on full display in the Court's next session when they overturn Roe in the case, they've already teed up to do the dirty deed: Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, about Mississippi's law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week. It's scheduled to be argued December 1.

Flashback: I was in law school in 1973 when the Supreme Court decided Roe, protecting a pregnant person's right to privacy under the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Also in my class at the time was Clarence Thomas, along with Hillary Rodham (later Hillary Clinton) and Bill Clinton.

The professors used what you probably know as the "Socratic method" -- asking hard questions about the cases they were discussing and waiting for students to raise their hands in response, and then criticizing the responses. It was a hair-raising but effective way to learn the law.

One of the principles guiding those discussions is called stare decisis -- Latin for "to stand by things decided." It's the doctrine of judicial precedent. If a court has already ruled on an issue (say, on reproductive rights), future courts should decide similar cases the same way. Supreme Courts can change their minds and rule differently than they did before, but they need good reasons to do so, and it helps if their opinion is unanimous or nearly so. Otherwise, their rulings appear (and are) arbitrary -- even, shall we say? -- partisan.

In those classroom discussions almost fifty years ago, Hillary's hand was always first in the air. When she was called upon, she gave perfect answers –- whole paragraphs, precisely phrased. She distinguished one case from another, using precedents and stare decisis to guide her thinking. I was awed.

My hand was in the air about half the time, and when called on, my answers were meh.

Clarence's hand was never in the air. I don't recall him saying anything, ever.

Bill was never in class.

Only one of us now sits on the Supreme Court. By all accounts, he and four of his colleagues —- all appointed by Republican presidents, three by a president who instigated a coup against the United States —- are getting ready to violate stare decisis, judicial precedent.

I don't expect them to give a clear and convincing argument for why. Do you?

FRANK'S COMPLETE ARCHIVES
Click Here

HOME   COLUMNS   FEATURES   FICTION   OPINION   POETRY   PHOTOGRAPHY